British Journal of Educational Psychology (2017)

© 2017 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

The complexity of school racial climate: Reliabilityand validity of a new measure for secondarystudents

Christy M. Byrd*Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA

Background. The conceptualization of the role of race and culture in students’

experience of school has been limited. This study presents a more comprehensive and

multidimensional framework than previously conceptualized and includes the two

domains of (1) intergroup interactions (frequency of interaction, quality of interaction,

equal status, and support for positive interaction) and (2) school racial socialization

(cultural socialization, mainstream socialization, promotion of cultural competence,

colourblind socialization, critical consciousness socialization, and stereotyping) (Byrd,

2015, Journal of Educational Research, 108, 10).

Aims. The scale presents a measure of school racial climate for middle and high school

students and tests for evidence of reliability and validity in two independent, nationwide

samples.

Sample and method. Participants were 819 children aged 12–18 (M = 15.27,

SD = 1.58) who completed the School Climate for Diversity – Secondary Scale and a

number of validating measures: general school climate, perceived discrimination,

culturally responsive teaching, grades, and academic motivation.

Results andconclusions. Confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses showed

support for the 10-factor structure of the scale, and the subscales were associated with

the validating measures in expected ways.

Although there has been an increasing focus on the role of race and culture in students’

school experiences, conceptualizations of how race and culture matter are generally

limited to a focus on overt racial discrimination (e.g., Alfaro, Uma~na-Taylor, Gonzales-Backen, B�amaca, & Zeiders, 2009) or culturally relevant teaching (e.g., Bennett, 2001).

The goal of the current study was to present a more comprehensive and nuanced

framework of US school racial climate, along with evidence for the reliability and validity

of an associated measure. School racial climate refers to perceptions of interracial

interactions and the socialization around race and culture in a school. There is a long

history of examining the role of interracial interactions for the psychological well-being

and academic outcomes of students (e.g., Aronson & Others, 1978; Green, Adams, &

Turner, 1988; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). Unfortunately,however, thisworkhas tended to conflate perceptions of discriminationwithperceptions

*Correspondence should be addressed to Christy M. Byrd, Psychology Faculty Services, University of California, Santa Cruz, SantaCruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA (email: cmbyrd@ucsc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12179

1

of school racial climate (Byrd, 2015), andmuchof thiswork iswith college students rather

than a wider range of school levels (Mattison & Aber, 2007). Additionally, by focusing on

the role of race in interactions, researchers have ignored the degree to which race and

culture are also infused into school curricula and socialization messages. In theeducational literature,work has addressed issues of the development and implementation

of multicultural education but generally disregards individual differences (e.g., Howard,

2001; Sleeter, 2012; Sleeter & Grant, 2011). Furthermore, there are few frameworks or

measures that consider school racial climate as multidimensional. The current study

draws on both psychological and educational literatures to develop a comprehensive,

multidimensional framework and an associated scale to measure school interracial

interactions and school racial socialization. This measure is explored in two studies with

identical aims: (1) to examine the factor structure of the scale, (2) to examine the internalconsistency of the subscales, (3) to explore the correlations between the subscales and

validating measures, and (4) to explore correlations between the subscales and academic

outcomes.

Need for a comprehensive framework and measure

The existing literature on school racial climate for secondary students is limited in several

ways. First, the research is primarily concerned with (un)fair treatment, and racialdiscrimination in particular. Discrimination refers to individual perceptions of being

treated unfairly due to one’s race (Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999). Perceptions of

discrimination are not necessarily synonymous with perceptions of unfair treatment in

the school context – that is, students may perceive themselves as being discriminated

against but may feel that the school is generally fair. Nevertheless, many researchers

report on individual experiences with discrimination as indicators of the school racial

climate (e.g., Dotterer, McHale, & Crouter, 2009; Kotori & Malaney, 2003; Mattison &

Aber, 2007). Therefore, there is a need to distinguish between the two constructs. Thecurrent framework conceptualizes perceptions of unfair treatment (equal status) as

perceptions of the context, not individual experiences.

A second limitation is that, although there is a great deal of literature on school racial

composition, students’ perceptions of the formal curriculum and informal socialization

have largely been ignored. Furthermore, although racial socialization researchers

acknowledge the presence of messages within schools (Hughes, McGill, Ford, & Tubbs,

2011;Walton et al., 2014), very few studies have examined students’ perceptions of these

messages. By examining students’ phenomenological experiences, the current frame-work can better account for how students in the same classroom understand the same

content differently based on their individual experiences and attitudes. Similarly, the

literature onmulticultural education and culturally relevant teaching has been concerned

with classrooms and activities that are already identified as culturally relevant rather than

examining variation in students’ perceptions in typical classrooms and schools (Howard,

2001).

A third limitation is that school racial climate has been treated as a unidimen-

sional construct (e.g., Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003; Chang & Le,2010; Simmons, Wittig, & Grant, 2010). Yet different aspects of racial climate may

affect students in different ways. For example, a negative quality of interaction is

likely to have a stronger effect on feelings of belonging because youth will find it

difficult to make friends at school. However, cultural socialization might have a

stronger effect on student’s identification with their ethnic–racial group because

2 Christy M. Byrd

they have more opportunity to learn about their group’s culture and history. A

multidimensional approach also moves away from simply labelling climate as

‘positive’ or ‘negative’ and is more appropriate from a phenomenological perspec-

tive because different features of the environment may be more salient to individualsdepending on their characteristics. Further, the associated scale is also multidimen-

sional and includes separate factors with no overarching factor.

Finally, it is important to note that the primary goal of the current research programme

is to outline a comprehensive framework of school racial climate, with a secondary goal of

providing a valid and reliable scale. Measures exist of some of the constructs explained

below, including equal status and quality of interaction. However, some existing

measures conflate constructs that are distinguished in the current framework. Of greater

importance is that most of the constructs outlined below do not have validated measuresassociated with them.

A framework of students’ perceptions of school racial climate

The framework has ten dimensions grouped into two domains: intergroup

interactions and school racial socialization. As the framework is concerned with

perceptions of school racial climate, it does not include objective school features

such as racial composition. The first domain draws on the intergroup relationsliterature (Allport, 1954; Chavous, 2005; Pettigrew, 2008) and considers the nature

of interactions across racial and cultural groups within a school. Interactions can be

described in terms of how frequently they occur (frequency of interaction) and by

how meaningful or positive/negative those interactions are (quality of interaction).

An additional dimension is equal status, which refers to how fairly different groups

are treated and whether students from different groups have similar opportunities

for recognition and participation. Although individuals’ perceptions of fair treatment

at school can be informed by their own experiences of discrimination, it isimportant to distinguish between the two constructs. For example, a Black student

may recognize that other Black students at their school are punished more

frequently than White students, even though the student has never been a target of

such punishment. Thus, equal status is more general than perceived discrimination.

Next, support for positive interaction describes the norms that govern

intergroup interactions. Intergroup contact theory highlights the importance of

authority support for contact (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 2008), and other work in

psychology also highlights the nature of school norms that can promote segregation(Tyson, Darity, & Castellino, 2005). Schools can convey support for positive

interaction in formal and informal ways, from schoolwide Mix It Up days (Southern

Poverty Law Center, 2010), which have students sitting with new classmates at

lunch, to teachers who use active learning practices that group students in different

ways, such as the jigsaw classroom Aronson & Patnoe (2011).

The final dimension in this domain is stereotyping, or perceptions that one’s group is

thought of or represented in stereotypical ways. Stereotyping is distinct from quality of

interaction or equal status in that it assesses perceptions of prejudicial thoughts and notbehaviours. Additionally, stereotyping includes stereotypical representations in the

school curriculum andmaterials. Both positive and negative stereotypes can be harmful to

student success as they limit the degree towhich a student is seen as an individual and can

unconsciously impair performance (e.g., Steele, 1997).

Complexity of school racial climate 3

School racial socialization

School racial socialization is messages about race and culture communicated at school

(Aldana &Byrd, 2015; Byrd, 2015). This area draws on the parental racial socialization and

multicultural education literatures (e.g., Bennett, 2001; Hughes et al., 2006) to focus onwhat students learn about their own and other groups in the formal curriculum as well as

informal messages. Many of these dimensions have been found to be associated with the

outcomes of African American youth in particular (Aldana & Byrd, 2015) but have less

often been studied for youth of different racial backgrounds.

The first dimension is cultural socialization, that is, what youth learn about their own

racial and cultural background. Theories of culturally relevant teaching (Aronson &

Laughter, 2016; e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995; Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008) and home–school dissonance (Arunkumar, Midgley, & Urdan, 1999; Tyler et al., 2008; Warzon &Ginsburg-Block, 2008) emphasize the importance of students’ cultures being acknowl-

edged and used as resources in classrooms. Similarly, Afrocentric education and other

forms of ethnic studies intentionally provide youthwith opportunities to learn about their

groups’ traditions and histories (e.g., Asante, 1991; Godina, 2003).

The alternative to cultural socialization ismainstream socialization, which refers to

learning aboutmainstreamUS norms, values, and traditions. This dimension also draws on

home–school dissonance frameworks (Arunkumar et al., 1999; Tyler et al., 2008) that

highlight Western/US values of individualism and competition, which sometimes clashwith values of minority groups such as communalism and familism (Schwartz et al.,

2010). Mainstream norms are observable in schools (e.g., Perry, 2001); however, no

studies of school racial climate have measured the extent to which students perceive

mainstream values, as existing home–school dissonance research rarelymeasures the two

conflicting cultures directly.

The third is promotion of cultural competence: learning about the histories and

traditions of other groups. Cultural competence includes skills such as comfort with

outgroupmembers, knowledge about outgroups, and an ability to interact positivelywitha wide range of people (Chang, 2002; Ponterotto, 2010). Learning about different racial

and cultural groups can range from limited exposure during multicultural fairs and

holidays to in-depth study of particular groups.

Fourth, colourblind socialization refers to messages that encourage youth to ignore

the importance of race. Educational researchers have long recognized the dangers of

overlooking the real-life significance of racial group difference in favour of minimizing

race or pretending that group-based inequalities do not exist (Apfelbaum, Pauker,

Sommers, & Ambady, 2010; Pollock, 2005). Colourblindness is associated with alienationand lower engagement for people of colour whose colour is ‘not seen’ (Plaut, Thomas, &

Goren, 2009) and can be counterproductive in school settings, for instance, by increasing

White students’ bias and limiting their ability to understand racial inequality (Apfelbaum

et al., 2010; Hughes, Bigler, & Levy, 2007; Richeson&Nussbaum, 2004; Schofield, 2006).

Nevertheless, few studies have measured students’ perceptions of the degree to which

those around them and the curriculum have colourblind views.

Finally, as opposed to colourblind socialization, critical consciousness socialization

teaches youth to recognize and address differences between racial groups in power andprivilege. Such teaching is less common in mainstream schools but is a foundation for

social justice pedagogy and prejudice reduction work (Aldana & Byrd, 2015; Aldana,

Rowley, Checkoway, & Richards-Schuster, 2012). This dimension is referred to as

‘preparation for bias’ in the parental racial socialization literature (Hughes et al., 2006).

4 Christy M. Byrd

Research questions and hypothesis justification

This study uses two independent, nationwide samples to test a scale, the School Climate

for Diversity – Secondary (SCD-S) Scale, that measures the dimensions described above.

The research questions for this study were: (1) Does the factor structure of the scalecorrespond to the theoretical framework? (2) Do the factors of the scale show good

reliability? (3) Are the factors of school racial climate associated with general school

climate, perceived discrimination, and culturally relevant teaching in expectedways? and

(4) Are the factors associated with academic outcomes in expected ways?

The first research questionwill determinewhether the surveymeasure corresponds to

the dimensions outlined above. A confirmatory factor analysis is expected to result in ten

factors with excellent fit, as measured by a CFI > .90 and a RMSEA < .05 (Browne &

Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1995). Second, I expected each subscale to have aCronbach’s a equal to or above .70.

The third question concerns relations between the factors and three validating

measures. School racial climate should have close associations with other aspects of the

school environment, such as general school climate, perceived discrimination, and

culturally relevant teaching:

General school climate

Existing frameworks of general school climate address racial climate in varying ways.

Some consider racial climate an aspect of general relationships and engagement (e.g.,

Thapa, Cohen,Guffey,&Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013;USDepartment of Education,Office

of Safe andHealthy Students, 2016). Others do not consider aspects of diversity, including

race and culture, at all (e.g., Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010). The current

framework conceptualizes school racial climate more broadly in that it both mirrors

aspects of general school climate with a racial dimension and introduces new ones. For

example, the quality of intergroup interaction can be considered a more specific versionof the more general quality of interpersonal interactions at a school. That is, interactions

across racial groupswould be heavily influenced by the overall tone of respectfulness and

caring. However, racial socialization dimensions such as critical consciousness socializa-

tion and colourblind socialization have no direct correspondence to other school climate

domains. For example, teaching and learning practices is a dimension of several major

models (e.g., Thapa et al., 2013), and it is possible but not necessarily the case that race-

aware racial socialization is more frequent in schools where teachers usemore innovative

practices. Nevertheless, they are not synonymous. Racial socialization is also likely morefrequent in schools that are more comfortable addressing other areas of diversity, such as

disability and sexual orientation; however, these areas are usually not included in models

of general school climate. Therefore, there is no reason to expect significant correlations

between general school climate and the dimensions of school racial socialization.

Expectations about correlations between the dimensions of school racial climate and

the dimensions of general school climate are as follows: Moderate correlations are

expected between the intergroup interactions dimensions and general school climate

dimensions relating to interactions and relationships, but low or non-significantcorrelations are expected between dimensions of school racial socialization and general

school climate. The general school climatemeasure in this study is the Inventory of School

Climate – Student (ISC-S) (Brand et al., 2003); thus, specifically, negativepeer interactionsand positive peer interactions will be strongly associated with quality of interaction

(inversely and directly, respectively). Furthermore, consistency and clarity of rules and

Complexity of school racial climate 5

disciplinary harshness will be moderately associated with equal status (directly and

inversely, respectively).

The ISC-S is onemeasure of general school climate that does include a subscale relating

to school racial climate. However, subscales such as these tend to combine multipleaspects of racial climate. For example, the support for cultural pluralism scale of the ISC-S

includes four items relating to positive interaction across race, fair treatment, and learning

about other cultures. Given that subscales such as these tap into a common feature of all of

the dimensions of school racial climate (i.e., race and culture), moderate-to-high

correlations between the factors of school racial climate and support for cultural

pluralism are expected.

Perceived discrimination

Asnoted, quality of intergroup interactions is oftenmeasured as perceived discrimination.

Therefore, the second validating measure is a discrimination measure. The next

hypothesis is the expectation ofmoderate negative correlationswith quality of interaction

and equal status, and a moderate positive correlation with stereotyping, which will

provide evidence that individuals’ experiences being treated unfairly themselves inform

their perceptions of the context. Nevertheless, those experiences are not the only

determining factor, so strong correlations are not expected. Additionally, discriminationwill have low correlations with the racial socialization dimensions, demonstrating

discriminant validity.

Culturally relevant teaching

Third, culturally relevant teaching (CRT) aims to bring students’ culture and background

into the classroom, promote critical consciousness, and set high expectations (Ladson-

Billings, 1995). The racial climate dimensions of cultural socialization and criticalconsciousness socialization are most similar to culturally relevant teaching. First, CRT is

similar to cultural socialization because CRT intentionally draws on students’ culture,

which may teach them about their culture and encourage them to learn more about it.

Second, the critical consciousness goals of CRT are directly alignedwith the racial climate

dimension of critical consciousness socialization. Therefore, I expectedmoderate-to-high

correlations between cultural socialization and critical consciousness socialization and a

measure of culturally relevant teaching.

The final research question will demonstrate predictive validity by showing that apositive school racial climate is associatedwith positive academic outcomes, as predicted

by existing research and theory (for reviews, see Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Bennett,

2001; Byrd, 2015; and Thapa et al., 2013). For example, lack of racial tension is associated

with greater feelings of belonging (Byrd & Chavous, 2011; Dotterer et al., 2009), and

equal status is associated with higher grades (Mattison & Aber, 2007). Additionally,

cultural socialization at school is associated with greater interest in school and higher

motivation (Aldana & Byrd, 2015). Finally, both quantitative research and qualitative

research suggest that stereotypes can negatively influence academic self-concepts(Dotterer et al., 2009; Rivas-Drake, 2011; Teranishi, 2002). The specific outcomes

evaluated in the current study are a range of achievement and motivational outcomes, in

particular grades, academic aspirations, interest in school, feelings of belonging, utility

value, importance of school, and academic self-concept. These outcomes were chosen

because they have validated scales associated with them and are easily measured.

6 Christy M. Byrd

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

Participantswere 315 6th- to 12th-grade students recruited through nationwide panels by

Qualtrics, an online survey company (Mage = 15.34, SD = 1.75). The sample was 62%

female, 25% White, 25% Latino, 25% African American, and 25% Asian. Chi-square tests

indicated that genderwas not balanced by race, as thereweremore Asian American (72%)and African American (68%) girls than expected, v2 (df = 3, N = 315) 10.76, p = .013.

Procedure

Procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the principal investiga-

tor’s institution. The surveywas delivered to adolescents on select Qualtrics panels online

based on random assignment and the likelihood that they would meet the eligibility

criteria. The first page of the survey described the survey and asked participants to obtainparent consent before continuing. Participants then completed the demographic block of

questions. Thosewhowere between the ages of 12 and 18,whowere in 6th to 12th grade,

andwho identified asWhite, African American, Asian American, or Latinowere allowed to

continue; the restwere directed to the end of the survey. Participant datawere excluded if

they further completed the survey in < 5 min or failed two attention checks. Participants

were allowed to complete the survey until the quotas for their racial group were fulfilled.

Demographics were in the first survey section, followed by outcomes, racial climate,

general school climate and discrimination, and finally culturally relevant teaching. Itemswere randomized within section. Participants were compensated in credit worth

approximately $1.40 to $1.60.

Measures

The SCD-S was initially developed for dissertation research in 2012 based on existing

measures of school climate and related constructs. Themeasure was reviewed by experts

in the field and school officials for face validity. Some evidence of factor structure andreliability was shown in a small, homogenous sample of middle and high school students

(Byrd, 2015). Development continued with a college version that was validated in three

samples (see Byrd, under review). That scale was then modified to be appropriate for

secondary students, including the simplification of wording and removing an item about

institutional racism. The institutional racism item was removed due to concerns that

adolescents would be unfamiliar with the term.

Participants self-reported their age, gender, grade, and race. Academic aspirations was

measured with one item asking how often participants wanted to go in school, from 1(‘some high school’) to 6 (‘get a graduate degree (master’s, PhD)’). Participants also

indicated the grades they usually get in school with a single-item question ranging from 1

(‘all or mostly A’s’) to 6 (‘mostly F’s’).

Motivation was measured using three scales from Eccles and Wigfield (1995; Wigfield

et al., 1997), all on a response scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true). First,

interest included three items about enjoying school (aStudy1 = .88, aStudy2 = .94). An

example was ‘I find school interesting’. Second, utility value consisted of three items

about how useful what was learned in school was for the future and daily life

Complexity of school racial climate 7

(aStudy1 = .86, aStudy2 = .88). An example itemwas ‘What I learn in school is useful for the

future’. Third, importance consisted of three items about how important being a good

student and getting good grades was to them (aStudy1 = .85, aStudy2 = .90). An example

item was ‘Being a good student is important to me’.School belonging (aStudy1 = .85, aStudy2 = .83) was measured with the relatedness

subscale of the Basic Needs Satisfaction Scale adapted for school (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The

scale includes eight items asking youth howmuch they like people at the school and how

much others at the school like them, and it was measured on a 1 (not at all true)-to-5

(completely true) scale. An example item was ‘I really like the people at my school’.

Adolescents’ perceptions of their academic competence were assessed with an

academic self-concept scale (aStudy1 = .87, aStudy2 = .90) based on a measure by Nicholls

(1978). The scale included eight items asking youth to rate themselves on a 1 (belowaverage)-to-5 (above average) scale in several academic subjects, grades, and overall

intelligence.

General school climate was measured using items from the Inventory of School

Climate – Student (ISC-S) (Brand et al., 2003). The scale has been validated in a large

sample and is commonly used in school climate research. All were on a scale of 1 (never)

to 5 (always). Support for cultural pluralism consisted of four items (aStudy1 = .74,

aStudy2 = .79). Teacher support (aStudy1 = .84, aStudy2 = .87) included six items about

how much teachers were willing to help students. Consistency and clarity of rules andexpectations (aStudy1 = .76, aStudy2 = .82) consisted of five items measuring the extent to

which students perceive that expectations are clear and enforced consistently. Student

commitment/achievement orientation (aStudy1 = .85, aStudy2 = .89) consisted of five

items measuring perceptions of how hard students worked to get good grades. Negative

peer interactions (aStudy1 = .87, aStudy2 = .88) consisted of five items asking how much

students in the school had trouble getting along. Positive peer interactions (aStudy1 = .84,

aStudy2 = .87) consisted of five itemsmeasuring howwell students got to knoweach other

and enjoyed participating in activities together. Disciplinary harshness (aStudy1 = .77,aStudy2 = .69) consisted of five items concerning perceptions that rules are too strict and

that it is easy to get in trouble. Student involvement in decision-making (aStudy1 = .86,

aStudy2 = .87) was measured with five items indicating how much students are able to

decide how thingswork in the classroom and school as awhole. Instructional innovation/

relevance (aStudy1 = .77, aStudy2 = .78) included four items asking about teachers trying

new and unusual ways of teaching. Finally, Safety Problems measured how often youth

were afraid of being a victim of violence or theft with six items (aStudy1 = .88,

aStudy2 = .89).Perceived discrimination was measured using the educational subscale of the

Adolescent Discrimination Distress Index (ADDI) (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000). It

consists of four items (aStudy1 = .80, aStudy2 = .85), such as ‘Because of your race/

ethnicity, you were given a lower grade than you deserved’. The response scale was 1

(never) to 5 (always).

Finally, the Student Measure of Culturally Responsive Teaching (Dickson, Chun, &

Fernandez, 2015) contained two subscales: (1) diverse teaching practice: the degree to

which teachers use diverse methods and establish a respectful climate (11 items,aStudy1 = .92, aStudy2 = .92); and (2) cultural engagement: the degree to which teachers

bring students’ culture and home life into the classroom (seven items, aStudy1 = .91,

aStudy2 = .90). Items were on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always).

8 Christy M. Byrd

Results

Question 1First, I explored the factor structure of the SCD-S scale using confirmatory factor

analysis in MPlus 6.1. Each subscale was specified as a latent variable defined by its

component items. All of the latent variables were correlated, and individual items

were allowed to correlate if they were within the same subscale and the correlation

improved model fit. Two items were removed from the critical consciousness scale

for low loadings (<.3).The hypothesis of excellent fit was confirmed: v2 (df = 656, N = 309) = 941.961,

p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .050, TLI = .95. Table 1 shows thestandardized factor loadings, which ranged from .459 to .852. I conducted a post-hoc

power analysis for the CFA using a method based on RMSEA (MacCallum, Browne, &

Sugawara, 1996) and an online calculator (Preacher & Coffman, 2006) with a null

hypothesis of .05 and an alternative hypothesis of .038. The analysis indicated that the

observed power was .99.

Question 2To answer the second research question, I examined Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale,

with the expectation that they would be above .70. The alphas are given in Table 1. The

hypothesis was confirmed: All were equal to or above .70.

Question 3

Next, I examined bivariate correlations between the subscales and the validating

measures. Each subscale was computed as the average of the items from the factoranalysis. The correlations are shown in Table 2a. For the purpose of this study, low

correlations were defined as below .2, moderate were .2 to .5, and high were above .5.

Althoughmy hypotheses were primarily concerned with the strength of the correlations,

the significance level was set at .05.

General school climate

The first hypothesis was that negative peer interactions would be strongly negativelyassociated with quality of interaction and positive peer interactions would be

strongly positively associated with quality of interaction. This hypothesis was

partially confirmed: The correlation with negative peer interaction was moderate

(r = �.296, p < .001), but the correlation with positive peer interaction was strong

(r = .624, p < .001).

Second, I hypothesized that equal status would be moderately positively

associated with consistency and clarity of rules, and moderately negatively with

disciplinary harshness. The hypothesis was confirmed, as the correlation with rulesclarity and discipline was moderate (r = .410, p < .001; r = �.236, p < .001,

respectively).

Third, I proposed moderate-to-high correlations between each of the school racial

climate subscales and support for cultural pluralism. With the exception of stereotyping

(r = �.150, p = .008), all of the correlations were above .420.

Complexity of school racial climate 9

Table 1. Standardized factor loadings and Cronbach’s alphas

Subscale and items

Study 1 Study 2

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Quality of Interaction (aStudy1 = .80, aStudy2 = .80)

Students of different races/ethnicities trust each

other

.763 .029 .749 .022

Students here like to have friends of different

races/ethnicities

.721 .032 .773 .021

People of different races/ethnicities get along

well

.789 .028 .745 .023

Frequency of Interaction

(aStudy1 = .81, aStudy2 = .84)

Students of different races/ethnicities study

together

.759 .029 .823 .018

Students of different races/ethnicities hang out

together

.797 .027 .752 .023

Students of different races/ethnicities work

together in class

.750 .030 .813 .019

Equal Status (aStudy1 = .86, aStudy2 = .87)

Students of all races/ethnicities are treated

equally at your school

.824 .023 .836 .017

The principals treat students of all races/

ethnicities fairly

.801 .025 .807 .019

At your school, teachers are fair to students of

all races/ethnicities

.850 .021 .845 .017

Stereotyping (aStudy1 = .82, aStudy2 = .84)

Your racial or ethnic group is seen in

stereotypical ways here

.622 .042 .702 .028

Students here have a lot of stereotypes about

your racial or ethnic group

.546 .046 .650 .032

Teachers and principals believe negative

stereotypes about your racial/ethnic group

.774 .031 .764 .025

Teachers are prejudiced against certain racial/

ethnic groups

.801 .030 .761 .025

Your racial or cultural group is represented in

stereotypical ways in textbooks and class

materials

.611 .042 .648 .031

Support for Positive Interaction (aStudy1 = .77, aStudy2 = .85)

Teachers encourage students to make friends

with students of different races/ethnicities

.736 .031 .792 .020

The principals like for students to have friends of

different races/ethnicities

.675 .036 .804 .019

Students here think it’s good to study with

people of different races/ethnicities

.737 .031 .781 .020

Teachers and principals say it’s good to be a

diverse school

.525 .045 .690 .026

Promotion of Cultural Competence (aStudy1 = .89, aStudy2 = .91)

Your classes teach you about diverse cultures

and traditions

.852 .018 .841 .015

Continued

10 Christy M. Byrd

Table 1. (Continued)

Subscale and items

Study 1 Study 2

Estimate SE Estimate SE

You have learned about new cultures and

traditions at school

.822 .021 .795 .018

You have the chance to learn about the culture

of others

.802 .023 .827 .016

In school you get to do things that help you learn

about people of different races and cultures

.804 .023 .818 .016

Your textbooks show people of many different

races/ethnicities

.550 .042 .687 .025

At your school, they encourage you to learn

about different cultures

.777 .025 .819 .016

Cultural Socialization (aStudy1 = .81, aStudy2 = .84)

In your classes you’ve learned new things about

your culture

.838 .025 .837 .018

At your school, you have chances to learn about

the history and traditions of your culture

.743 .032 .771 .022

At your school, you have participated in

activities that teach you more about your

cultural background

.723 .033 .793 .020

Critical Consciousness Socialization (aStudy1 = .72, aStudy2 = .73)

Your teachers encourage awareness of social

issues affecting your culture

.774 .032 .738 .023

Teachers teach about racial inequality in the

United States

.646 .040 .685 .026

In your classes you have learned about how race/

ethnicity plays a role in who is successful

.482 .051 .508 .037

You have opportunities to learn about social

justice

.672 .038 .752 .023

Mainstream Socialization (aStudy1 = .79, aStudy2 = .86)

At school you learn what it means to be an

American

.712 .036 .827 .018

Your school teaches you core American values .710 .036 .813 .019

At your school, they encourage you to be proud

of what people in the U.S. have accomplished

.644 .041 .731 .024

Your classes have taught you about what makes

the United States unique from other countries

in the world.

.719 .036 .728 .024

Colourblind Socialization (aStudy1 = .70, aStudy2 = .70)

At your school, people think race/ethnicity is

not an important factor in how people are

treated

.707 .040 .627 .036

People here think it’s better to not pay attention

to race/ethnicity

.712 .040 .567 .039

Your school has a colourblind perspective .565 .048 .626 .035

Your school encourages you to ignore racial/

ethnic difference

.459 .053 .589 .037

Note. All ps < .001.

Complexity of school racial climate 11

Table

2.Subscalecorrelationsvalidatingmeasures(a)(Study1);(b)(Study2)

Variable

Teacher

support

Consistency

and

clarity

ofRules

Student

commitment

Negative

peer

interactions

Positive

peer

interaction

Disciplinary

harshness

Student

involvement

indecision-m

aking

Instructional

innovation

Supportfor

cultural

pluralism

Safety

problems

Perceived

discrimination

CRT:

Diverse

teaching

practices

CRT:

Cultural

engagement

(a)

Qualityofinteraction

r.504

.365

.505

�.296

.624

�.089

.342

.431

.625

�.124

�.129

.522

.325

p<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.115

<.001

<.001

<.001

.028

.022

<.001

<.001

Frequency

ofinteraction

r.425

.334

.449

�.207

.541

�.046

.298

.406

.610

�.137

�.129

.505

.303

p<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.420

<.001

<.001

<.001

.015

.022

<.001

<.001

Equalstatus

r.532

.410

.394

�.367

.513

�.236

.333

.442

.557

�.197

�.284

.520

.326

p<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Stereotyping

r�.165

�.193

�.048

.542

�.162

.393

.153

.049

�.150

.581

.683

�.168

.111

p.003

.001

.395

<.001

.004

<.001

.006

.388

.008

<.001

<.001

.003

.051

Supportforpositive

interaction

r.540

.398

.472

�.187

.611

�.057

.410

.568

.661

�.047

.023

.577

.513

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.001

<.001

.313

<.001

<.001

<.001

.406

.681

<.001

<.001

Promotionofculturalcompetence

r.519

.389

.463

�.135

.599

�.017

.448

.603

.646

.007

.017

.585

.645

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.017

<.001

.761

<.001

<.001

<.001

.897

.768

<.001

<.001

Culturalsocialization

r.402

.306

.382

�.006

.438

.072

.401

.478

.461

.128

.152

.405

.606

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.910

<.001

.202

<.001

<.001

<.001

.023

.007

<.001

<.001

Continued

12 Christy M. Byrd

Table

2.(Continued)

Variable

Teacher

support

Consistency

and

clarity

ofRules

Student

commitment

Negative

peer

interactions

Positive

peer

interaction

Disciplinary

harshness

Student

involvement

indecision-m

aking

Instructional

innovation

Supportfor

cultural

pluralism

Safety

problems

Perceived

discrimination

CRT:

Diverse

teaching

practices

CRT:

Cultural

engagement

Criticalconsciousness

r.355

.213

.295

.084

.371

.088

.415

.536

.420

.196

.264

.425

.583

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.138

<.001

.121

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Mainstream

socialization

r.469

.361

.393

�.062

.473

.032

.397

.503

.465

.048

.053

.475

.512

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.276

<.001

.566

<.001

<.001

<.001

.393

.346

<.001

<.001

Colourblindsocialization

r.393

.264

.276

�.145

.416

.024

.356

.367

.416

.028

.051

.353

.303

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.010

<.001

.677

<.001

<.001

<.001

.627

.369

<.001

<.001

(b)

Qualityofinteraction

r.563

.446

.536

�.169

.656

.024

.371

.565

.638

�.012

�.040

.514

.410

p<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.596

<.001

<.001

<.001

.782

.373

<.001

<.001

Frequency

ofinteraction

r.494

.410

.494

�.148

.594

.035

.285

.508

.619

�.057

�.076

.488

.340

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.001

<.001

.433

<.001

<.001

<.001

.200

.087

<.001

<.001

Equalstatus

r.581

.507

.494

�.276

.569

�.121

.318

.471

.527

�.145

�.239

.554

.364

p<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.006

<.001

<.001

<.001

.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Continued

Complexity of school racial climate 13

Table

2.(Continued)

Variable

Teacher

support

Consistency

and

clarity

ofRules

Student

commitment

Negative

peer

interactions

Positive

peer

interaction

Disciplinary

harshness

Student

involvement

indecision-m

aking

Instructional

innovation

Supportfor

cultural

pluralism

Safety

problems

Perceived

discrimination

CRT:

Diverse

teaching

practices

CRT:

Cultural

engagement

Stereotyping

r�.032

�.170

�.061

.631

�.081

.465

.314

.117

�.038

.676

.728

�.069

.214

p.474

<.001

.175

<.001

.069

<.001

<.001

.009

.397

<.001

<.001

.121

<.001

Supportforpositive

interaction

r.612

.491

.544

�.100

.644

.101

.456

.624

.702

.047

.040

.598

.543

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.025

<.001

.023

<.001

<.001

<.001

.288

.371

<.001

<.001

Promotionofculturalcompetence

r.633

.484

.526

�.058

.648

.088

.483

.666

.695

.093

.062

.622

.632

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.196

<.001

.048

<.001

<.001

<.001

.038

.165

<.001

<.001

Culturalsocialization

r.517

.327

.421

.074

.501

.181

.499

.606

.564

.233

.219

.487

.670

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.095

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Criticalconsciousness

r.537

.340

.422

.130

.508

.220

.543

.634

.560

.256

.253

.534

.659

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.004

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

Mainstream

socialization

r.596

.479

.514

�.032

.603

.144

.438

.619

.610

.088

.077

.602

.556

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.476

<.001

.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.048

.086

<.001

<.001

Colourblindsocialization

r.379

.254

.265

.029

.373

.062

.415

.388

.355

.166

.112

.343

.347

p<.001

<.001

<.001

.520

<.001

.168

<.001

<.001

<.001

<.001

.012

<.001

<.001

Note.

CRT=culturally

relevantteaching.

14 Christy M. Byrd

Perceived discrimination

I expected perceived discrimination to be moderately negatively correlated with quality

of interaction and equal status, and positively with stereotyping. These hypotheses were

partially confirmed: The correlation with quality of interaction was low (r = �.129,p = .022), with equal status was moderate (r = �.284, p < .001), and with stereotyping

was high (r = .683, p < .001). The next hypothesis was that perceived discrimination

would have low correlations with the racial socialization dimensions, and this was for the

most part confirmed (rs < .27).

Culturally relevant teaching

The final hypothesis about the validating measures was the expectation of moderate-to-

high correlations between CRT and cultural socialization and critical consciousness

socialization. This hypothesis was confirmed: The correlations with cultural socialization

were .405 (p < .001) and .606 (p < .001) for diverse teaching practices and cultural

engagement, respectively. For critical consciousness socialization, the correlations were

.425 (p < .001) and .583 (p < .001), respectively.

Question 4

To determine how the dimensions of school racial climatewere associatedwith academic

outcomes, I examined bivariate correlations between the subscales and good grades,

academic aspirations, interest, feelings of belonging, utility value, importance of

education, and academic self-concept. The correlations are shown in Table 3a. I expected

indicators of a positive racial climate to be associated with more positive outcomes, and

this was generally true. Most of the correlations were in the expected directions andwerestatistically significant (p < .05). Notably, however, colourblind socialization was

positively associated with interest, belonging, utility value, importance, and academic

self-concept, and stereotyping was positively associated with academic self-concept.

Discussion

The evidence from Study 1 supported the fit of the data with the theoretical framework

and strong reliability of the subscales. I also found expected correlations between the

subscales and measures of general school climate, perceived discrimination, culturally

relevant teaching, and academic outcomes. A second study was undertaken to replicate

the findings in an independent sample.

STUDY 2

Method

Participants were 504 6th- to 12th-grade students recruited by Qualtrics (Mage = 15.23,

SD = 1.46). For this data collection, quotas were set for race and gender such that the

sample was evenly balanced across both categories, such that there were 63 White boys,

White girls, Black boys, Black girls, Latino boys, Latina girls, Asian American boys, and AsianAmerican girls. The procedures, measures, and analyses were identical to Study 1, except

that participants were between the ages of 13 and 18. This change was made because

Qualtrics indicated that it was more difficult to recruit 12-year-old participants and obtain a

balanced sample. The research questions and analyses were identical to Study 1.

Complexity of school racial climate 15

Table 3. Subscale correlations with academic outcomes (a) (Study 1); (b) (Study 2)

Subscale Grades Aspirations Interest Belonging Utility value Importance

Academic

self-concept

(a)

Quality of interaction

r .188 .128 .241 .305 .259 .291 .223

p .001 .023 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Frequency of interaction

r .207 .120 .233 .252 .235 .351 .185

p <.001 .033 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .001

Equal status

r .171 .081 .304 .353 .304 .284 .170

p .002 .153 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .002

Stereotyping

r .017 .067 .048 �.261 .044 .067 .124

p .761 .235 .396 <.001 .435 .238 .027

Support for positive interaction

r .169 .129 .303 .258 .349 .332 .204

p .003 .022 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Promotion of cultural competence

r .164 .136 .392 .326 .460 .380 .203

p .004 .015 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Cultural socialization

r .101 .099 .337 .252 .374 .290 .176

p .074 .080 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .002

Critical consciousness

r .119 .136 .280 .103 .331 .282 .174

p .035 .016 <.001 .068 <.001 <.001 .002

Mainstream socialization

r .059 .141 .363 .265 .405 .331 .181

p .292 .012 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .001

Colourblind socialization

r .134 .045 .206 .214 .198 .126 .177

p .017 .428 <.001 <.001 <.001 .026 .002

(b)

Quality of interaction

r .217 .052 .439 .413 .384 .316 .291

p <.001 .248 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Frequency of interaction

r .157 .069 .415 .376 .374 .322 .286

p <.001 .124 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Equal status

r .143 .048 .354 .367 .342 .306 .186

p .001 .285 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Stereotyping

r .039 �.096 .158 �.117 .138 .045 .103

p .380 .032 <.001 .009 .002 .317 .021

Support for positive interaction

r .162 .059 .476 .397 .475 .346 .285

p <.001 .185 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

Continued

16 Christy M. Byrd

Results

Questions 1 and 2

The confirmatory factor analysis revealed excellent fit: v2 (df = 655,

N = 504) = 1138.394, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .055, TLI = .95.

Table 1 shows the standardized factor loadings, which ranged from .508 to .845.Observed power was again .99. Cronbach’s alphas for each subscale were again all equal

to or above .70, as shown in Table 1.

Question 3

General school climate

Bivariate correlations for this question are shown in Table 2b. The first hypothesis was that

negative peer interactions and positive peer interactions would be strongly associated with

quality of interaction. This hypothesis was partially confirmed: The correlation with negative

peer interaction was low (r = �.169, p < .001), but the correlation with positive peer

interaction was strong (r = .656, p < .001). I also hypothesized that equal status would bemoderately positively associated with consistency and clarity of rules, and moderately

negativelywithdisciplinaryharshness.Thehypothesiswasnotconfirmed:Thecorrelationwith

rules clarity was strong (r = .507, p < .001) and disciplinary harshness, weak (r = �.121,

p = .006). Last, I proposed moderate-to-high correlations between each of the school racial

climate subscales andsupport for culturalpluralism.Thishypothesiswasagainconfirmed for all

except stereotyping (r = �.038, p = .397).

Perceived discrimination

I expected perceived discrimination to be moderately correlated with quality of

interaction, equal status, and stereotyping. This hypothesis was only partially confirmed.

Perceived discrimination had a strong correlation with stereotyping (r = .728, p < .001)

Table 3. (Continued)

Subscale Grades Aspirations Interest Belonging Utility value Importance

Academic

self-concept

Promotion of cultural competence

r .212 .028 .466 .418 .471 .308 .311

p <.001 .530 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Cultural socialization

r .110 �.033 .460 .315 .474 .244 .254

p .014 .454 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Critical consciousness

r .159 �.022 .438 .318 .423 .253 .281

p <.001 .616 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Mainstream socialization

r .186 .050 .454 .413 .493 .368 .298

p <.001 .262 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001Colourblind socialization

r .185 �.076 .360 .228 .302 .213 .213

p <.001 .089 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

Complexity of school racial climate 17

and a moderate correlation with equal status (r = �.239, p < .001) and was not

significantly associated with quality of interaction (r = �.040, p = .373). These findings

are similar to Study 1. The next hypothesis was that perceived discrimination would have

low correlations with the racial socialization dimensions, and this was again confirmed(rs < .25).

Culturally relevant teaching

Finally, I expected moderate-to-high correlations between CRT and cultural socialization

and critical consciousness socialization. This was confirmed as all four correlations were

above .49.

Question 4

The fourth research question concerned predictive validity, and the bivariate correlations

are shown in Table 3b. The hypothesis was mostly confirmed, as most of the correlations

were in the expected directions. Again, however, colourblind socializationwas positively

associated with most of the outcomes.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The goal of the current study was to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the

School Climate for Diversity – Secondary Scale. A strength of this study was that the

participants were drawn from four racial groups from diverse settings and regions across

the United States. Thus, the findings are highly generalizable. A second strength was that

the findings were replicated in two independent samples.The SCD-S showed concordance with existing measures of general school climate,

school racial climate, and culturally relevant teaching. The scale also showed expected

positive correlations with academic outcomes. However, the scale did not show all

expected associations. First, a surprising finding was that quality of interaction was not

as strongly related to negative peer interactions and perceived discrimination as

expected. However, it was strongly related to positive peer interactions. Although the

subscale is intended to tap into both positive and negative interactions, all of the items

are positively worded, so there is a limitation to the subscale. At the same time,however, the equal status subscale also had all positively worded items and yet had

stronger correlations with negative peer interactions and perceived discrimination.

Second, although research has hypothesized negative outcomes due to colourblind

socialization, the vast majority of existing research is qualitative and based on

researcher evaluations of colourblindness. Few studies have examined adolescents’

perceptions of colourblind messages. Therefore, further research is needed to explore

the role of the messages for youths’ outcomes. It may be that White youth and youth of

colour interpret these messages differently, or the meaning of such messages dependson the racial composition of the school. The findings also revealed significant positive

correlations between mainstream socialization and most academic outcomes. Given the

lack of literature on students’ perceptions of these messages, the implications of these

findings are unclear, but they do highlight the need for future study of messages about

American values as an aspect of racial climate.

18 Christy M. Byrd

Some limitations of the study were that it is not known how many participants

attended the same schools. Names of schools were not collected to protect participant

privacy – future research could collect more specific information to conduct hierarchical

analyses or to examine variation in perceptions of school racial climate by school andcommunity demographics. Future work should also explore measurement invariance by

race and gender and include students from other racial groups.

Implications

Theprimary implication of the currentwork is that educators nowhave a framework and a

tool to understand the particular ways that race and culture are perceived in secondary

schools. As existing measures and research treat climate in a broad manner (e.g., Brandet al., 2003), schools can only describe their climates as positive or negative. However,

schools with a high number of colourblind messages will require different interventions

than schools with poor quality of interactions, for example. Thus, acknowledging the

multidimensionality of racial climate in conceptualization andmeasurementwill improve

research and intervention.

ConclusionThis study has contributed to the literature in educational psychology by recognizing both

intergroup interactions and the curriculum as components of school racial climate, by

disentangling the relationship between racial climate and perceived discrimination, and

by taking a phenomenological and individual differences viewpoint. School racial climate

is a complex and multidimensional construct, and the School Climate for Diversity –Secondary Scale is a reliable and valid measure of it.

References

Aldana, A., & Byrd, C. M. (2015). School ethnic–racial socialization: Learning about race and

ethnicity among African American students. The Urban Review, 47, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0319-0

Aldana, A., Rowley, S. J., Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2012). Raising ethnic-racial

consciousness: The relationship between intergroup dialogues and adolescents’ ethnic-racial

identity and racism awareness. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.641863

Alfaro,E.C.,Uma~na-Taylor, A. J.,Gonzales-Backen,M.A., B�amaca,M.Y.,&Zeiders,K.H. (2009). Latino

adolescents’ academic success: The role of discrimination, academic motivation, and gender.

Journal of Adolescence, 32, 941–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.007Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S. R., &Ambady,N. (2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality?

Psychological Science, 21, 1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384741

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education a

synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206.https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The Jigsaw method (3rd ed.).

London: Pinter & Martin.

Arunkumar, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1999). Perceiving high or low home-school dissonance:

Longitudinal effects on adolescent emotional and academic well-being. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 9(4), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0904_4

Complexity of school racial climate 19

Asante, M. K. (1991). The afrocentric idea in education. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2),

170–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295608Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research inmulticultural education.Reviewof Educational Research,

71(2), 171–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002171Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and

reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism,

and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.

Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrd, C. M. (2015). The associations of intergroup interactions and school racial socialization with

academic motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.831803

Byrd, C. M., & Chavous, T. (2011). Racial identity, school racial climate, and school intrinsic

motivation among African American youth: The importance of person–context congruence.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00743.x

Chang, M. J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on students’

racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51(1), 21–42.Chang, J., & Le, T. N. (2010). Multiculturalism as a dimension of school climate: The impact on the

academic achievement of Asian American and Hispanic youth. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 16(4), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020654Chavous, T. M. (2005). An intergroup contact-theory framework for evaluating racial climate on

predominantly white college campuses. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36,

239–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-8623-1Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-

determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/

S15327965PLI1104_01

Dickson, G. L., Chun, H., & Fernandez, I. T. (2015). The development and initial validation of the

student measure of culturally responsive teaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41,

141–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415604879Dotterer, A. M., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2009). Sociocultural factors and school engagement

among African American youth: The roles of racial discrimination, racial socialization, and ethnic

identity. Applied Developmental Science, 13, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690902

801442

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’

achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455906512Godina, H. (2003). Mesocentrism and students of Mexican background: A community intervention

for culturally relevant instruction. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0203_02

Green, C.W., Adams, A.M., &Turner, C.W. (1988). Development and initial validation of the school

interracial climate scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00912525

Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African-American students’ perceptions of

culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010393224120

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural

equationmodeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20 Christy M. Byrd

Hughes, J. M., Bigler, R. S., & Levy, S. R. (2007). Consequences of learning about historical racism

among European American and African American children. Child Development, 78(6), 1689–1705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01096.x

Hughes, D. L., McGill, R. K., Ford, K. R., & Tubbs, C. (2011). Black youths’ academic success: The

contribution of racial socialization from parents, peers, and schools. In N. E. Hill, T. L. Mann&H.

E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), African American children andmental health, Vols 1 and 2: Development

and context, Prevention and social policy (pp. 95–124). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

Hughes,D. L., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson,D. J., Stevenson,H.C.,& Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’

ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study.

Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen,W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates

for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3),

279–302. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0003Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental

health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 40, 208–230.Kotori, C., & Malaney, G. D. (2003). Asian American students’ perceptions of racism, reporting

behaviors, and awareness of legal rights andprocedures.NASPA Journal,40, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1254

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.American Educational

Research Journal, 32, 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of

sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.

Mattison, E., & Aber, M. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: The association of racial climate

with achievement and behavioral outcomes.American Journal of Community Psychology, 40,

1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9128-xMorrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., &Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy:

A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41, 433–452.https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680802400006

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic

attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development,

49, 800–814. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128250Perry, P. (2001). White means never having to say You’re ethnic. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 30(1), 56–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124101030001002Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations,32, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for

minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.

02318.x

Pollock, M. (2005). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Multicultural personality: An evolving theory of optimal functioning in

culturally heterogeneous societies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 714–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009359203

Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power andminimum sample size for RMSEA.

[Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org.

Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on

racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002

Rivas-Drake, D. (2011). Public ethnic regard and academic adjustment among Latino adolescents.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 537–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00700.x

Complexity of school racial climate 21

Schofield, J. W. (2006). The colorblind perspective in school: Causes and consequences. In J. A.

Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.),Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 271–295). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J. K., Kim, S. Y., . . .Greene,A. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather?

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021370

Simmons, S. J., Wittig, M. A., & Grant, S. K. (2010). A mutual acculturation model of multicultural

campus climate and acceptance of diversity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 16(4), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020237Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban

Education, 47, 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911431472Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2011).Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches

to race, class and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Southern Poverty LawCenter (2010).What ismix it up at lunch day?Retrieved from https://www.

tolerance.org/mix-it-up?page=1

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and

performance. The American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

Teranishi, R. T. (2002). Asian Pacific Americans and critical race theory: An examination of school

racial climate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845281

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate

research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907

Tyler, K. M., Uqdah, A. L., Dillihunt, M. L., Beatty-Hazelbaker, R., Conner, T., Gadson, N., . . .Owens,

E. (2008). Cultural discontinuity: Toward a quantitative investigation of a major hypothesis in

education. Educational Researcher, 37, 280–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08321459Tyson,K., Darity,W.,&Castellino, D. R. (2005). It’s not “a black thing”:Understanding the burdenof

actingwhite and other dilemmas of high achievement.American Sociological Review, 70, 582–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000403

US Department of Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students. (2016). Technical and

Administration User Guide for the ED School Climate Surveys (EDSCLS). Retrieved from

http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/

Walton, J., Priest, N., Kowal, E., White, F., Brickwood, K., Fox, B., & Paradies, Y. (2014). Talking

culture? Egalitarianism, color-blindness and racism in Australian elementary schools. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 39, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.003Warzon, K. B., & Ginsburg-Block, M. (2008). Cultural continuity between home and school as a

predictor of student motivation: What we know, what we need to learn, and implications for

practice. InC.Hudley&A. E.Gottfried (Eds.),Academicmotivationand the culture of school in

childhood and adolescence (pp. 121–145). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., &

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values

across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.451

Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical review,

instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,

28, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205

Received 13 July 2016; revised version received 4 April 2017

22 Christy M. Byrd